A Federal Appeals Court Denied Mark Meadows’ bid to move His Georgia RICO Criminal Charges To Federal Court, rejecting a Procedural gambit that could have Derailed the State’s Election-related Charges against not only Meadows but also Trump.
In an Opinion written by a Conservative Judge, the Court ruled that Meadows, who served as Trump’s White House Chief-of-Staff, must remain in State Court in Atlanta.
Meadows could appeal Monday’s Ruling to the Supreme Court. But for now, the Ruling from a Three-Judge Panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ (D) Racketeering Prosecution of Trump, Meadows, and 12 others, for efforts connected to Trump’s bid to Subvert the 2020 Election. Former Justice Department Official Jeff Clark and Three GOP Activists who Falsely Signed Electoral College Paperwork, are also seeking to Transfer their Cases to Federal Court, though Monday’s Ruling is likely a harbinger of Doom for those efforts.
The 3-0 Decision was authored by Chief Judge, William Pryor, and it came unusually quickly, just Three Days after the Panel heard Oral Arguments and expressed Skepticism about Meadows’ Legal Theories.
The Panel ruled that a Law permitting Federal Officials to transfer State-Level Charges into Federal Court, applies only to current Government Officials, Not Former Ones like Meadows. And the Panel of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit concluded that, even if Meadows were still in Office, His Argument would still Fail because the State’s Charges against Meadows, are about an alleged Criminal Agreement to join a Conspiracy, Not about any Actions Meadows took as Trump’s Chief-of-Staff.
Throughout His 36-page Opinion, Pryor expressed bewilderment at Meadows’ Unlimited Conception of His Duties as Trump’s Chief-of-Staff. Meadows’ Lawyers argued that nearly every action He took was part of His Official White House Responsibilities, even when they involved making Campaign Decisions to aid Trump’s Re-Election. “We cannot rubberstamp Meadows’ legal opinion that the president’s chief of staff has unfettered authority,” Pryor wrote.
The Panel found that Meadows’ efforts to Contact Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), about possibly Altering the Outcome of the 2020 Election fell squarely Outside His Official duties. His Decision to join a Call with Trump and Raffensperger on Jan. 2nd, 2021, a now-infamous Call that is at the heart of the State Prosecution, “reflected a clear attempt to further Trump’s ‘private litigation interests,’” rather than any Government Function.
The Panel characterized Meadows’ December 2020 Visit to Georgia as an attempt to “infiltrate” an ongoing Recount, an Act Pryor said, that was far Outside His Official Duties. “Meadows cannot point to any authority for influencing state officials with allegations of election fraud,” Pryor wrote. “At bottom, whatever the chief of staff’s role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate.”
Pryor, an Appointee of President George W. Bush, Dismissed much of Meadows’ Legal Position. The Judge said Meadows was trying to simultaneously argue that His Official Duties encompassed some Partisan Political matters, while also acknowledging He was Not Permitted while acting in His Official Job, to get Involved in Election-related Advocacy for Any Candidate.
“Meadows cannot have it both ways,” Pryor wrote. “He cannot shelter behind testimony about the breadth of his official responsibilities, while disclaiming his admissions that he understood electioneering activity to be out-of-bounds. That he repeatedly denied having any role in, or speaking on behalf of, the Trump campaign, reflects his recognition that such activities were forbidden to him as chief-of-staff.”
The Two other Judges: Obama Appointee Robin Rosenbaum and Biden Appointee Nancy Abudu, issued a Stark Warning that the Court’s Interpretation could produce a “nightmare scenario” and “cripple the federal government” by allowing State Prosecutors to Intimidate and Interfere with Federal Officials by subjecting them to the threat of Criminal Action in State Court.
The Democrat Aappointed Judges, Explicitly urged Congress to Change the Law, known as a “Removal” Statute, to make clear that former Officials Prosecuted over their Official Duties can try to Rove their Cases to Federal Court, even after those Officials have Left their Posts.
“These types of actions can cripple government operations, discourage federal officers from faithfully performing their duties and dissuade talented people from entering public service,” Rosenbaum wrote, in a Concurring Opinion Abudu joined.
Meadows Aappeal to the Full Bench of the 11th Circuit, or to the Supreme Court.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment